World CommunityPodcast#11: Swords and Plowshares: A Bold ProposalIntroductionMy title comes from the book of Micah.They shall beat their swords into plowshares,and their spears into pruning hooks;nation shall not lift up sword against nation,neither shall they learn war any more;but they shall all sit under their own vinesand under their own fig trees,and no one shall make them afraid (Micah 4:3).This beautiful piece of ancient poetry has a utopian ring that makes it appealing, but it is unlikely to convert those who make and implement foreign policy in the contemporary world, especially in the U.S.For example, rather than encouraging President Bush to beat swords into plowshares, Robert Gates, the new U. S. Secretary of Defense has requested the President to add 92,000 U.S. ground forces by the year 2012 — 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines (The Boston Globe, January 12, 2007). This is not simply a partisan position. According to The Boston Globe, this proposal is “expected to draw widespread support in Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have tried to persuade the White House for years that the military needs to grow” (The Boston Globe, January 12, 2007). The major challenge for Gates will not be to get Congressional support but to get almost 100,000 volunteers for military service, especially at time when fighting foreign wars is increasingly unpopular with the U.S. public. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York recently called for reinstatement of the draft, and on January 9 he said he plans to introduce legislation for that purpose (WGBH, Open Source, 1-09-07). Rangel’s proposal is based on the social and economic inequality that plagues the volunteer military that currently exists in the U.S. (New York Times, December 23, 2006, p. A11), but when he introduced a similar proposal in 2004 it was soundly defeated (402-2). However, now that the U.S. Administration is calling for an expansion of the size of the military, the idea of universal military conscription is likely to attract additional support. Congressman Rangel is right about the issue of social and economic inequality. However, mandating a military draft in light of recent U.S. foreign policy would probably be used to expand and extend the militarism that now prevails. Militarism and Imperialism The previous podcasts in this series on world community provided evidence for the claim that the current foreign policy of the United States requires a strong military to continue to build and maintain a growing American Empire. President Bush’s address on January 10, 2007, in which he called for an additional 22,500 ground troops and another $100 billion in funding for the Iraq war is fresh evidence for that claim. But in those previous podcasts, I have also offered an alternative to U.S. imperialism and militarism — the Cosmopolitan Idea as formulated by Immanuel Kant and supported by contemporary philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum and Kwame Anthony Appiah. The Cosmopolitan Idea is based on the concept of moral and political autonomy for all citizens of the world. Instead of building a world order that is established and preserved by an empire under the control of a single nation, the Cosmopolitan Idea entails joint responsibility for a just world order that is shared by all nations and all people. That is not a utopian dream but a realistic plan that already has a strong beginning through the United Nations. The major problem with the UN is that it lacks the moral and political support and the resources that are required to fulfill its basic goals, which include: peace and security, economic and social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs, and international law. The United States is currently a major impediment to implementing the Cosmopolitan Idea through the UN. The evidence supporting that claim is overwhelming. Rather than waiting for UN action to deal with the reality of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003, the United States acted unilaterally to respond not to the actual threat to the peace and security of the entire world but to a seriously flawed assessment of the situation that turned out to be blatantly wrong. Rather than sending an ambassador to the United Nations who would work honestly and effectively to promote the welfare of all member nations, the Bush Administration sent John Bolton to work primarily to promote a narrow vision of the interests of the United States. This is not a recent phenomenon. The list of ways in which the U.S. has circumvented or undermined the UN since it began is a long one, beginning with the refusal of the U.S. to endorse the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why is this so? The only reasonable explanation is that the U.S. is intent on building an empire based on the acquisition of national power, rather than seeking to promote the Cosmopolitan Idea. In his farewell address as he left office in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, warned about what he called the “military industrial complex.” He feared that military aspirations and the quest for economic domination on the part of special interests in the U.S. would dominate both foreign policy and the domestic agenda and threaten “the very structure of our society.” His vision of what might happen was prophetic. To this day the U.S. continues to build an empire that threatens the very foundations of the democratic republic specified in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The United States, the one and only superpower, is currently attempting to create a global empire through economic and military expansion that allegedly serves the U.S. national interest. In spite of President Eisenhower’s warning, U.S. weapons sales dominate all other nations by a huge margin. Chalmers Johnson, in his book Sorrows of Empire, says: “Since 1991, the United States has been by far the largest single seller of munitions on earth. From 1997 to 2001, it exported $44.82 billion in arms; the next biggest supplier, Russia, sold $17.35 billion. Train and sell — it is a closely meshed system to enlist allies and make money from less developed countries” (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2004), p. 133. That is currently happening in Iraq. Even more disturbing is Johnson’s estimate that the U.S. currently operates more than 1,000 military bases outside the U.S. Those bases, which exist on every continent except Antarctica, constitute a “new form of empire” (Sorrows of Empire, p. 1). Johnson says: “The only truly common elements in the totality of America’s foreign bases are imperialism and militarism—an impulse on the part of our elites to dominate other peoples” (Sorrows of Empire, p. 52). Johnson distinguishes the military from militarism. “By military I mean all the activities, qualities, and institutions required by a nation to fight a war in its defense” (Sorrows of Empire, p. 23). Militarism, by contrast, is “the phenomenon by which a nation’s armed services come to put their institutional preservation ahead of achieving national security” (ibid.). He concludes: “The American network of bases is a sign not of military preparedness but of militarism, the inescapable companion of imperialism” (Sorrows of Empire, p. 24). World peace and security for communities and individuals are desirable goals. This need became tragically evident after the hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. The breakdown of law and order in any community leads to horrible consequences. This is also a major factor in Iraq today, and it is the most compelling reason why the U.S. should not precipitously withdraw the military troops that helped avoid chaos in that country after the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime. At the same time, the reason U.S. and British forces should exit that country as quickly as possible is that they are heavily identified with imperialism and colonialism. Few people outside the U.S. think that the U.S. has troops in Iraq for altruistic reasons. Lasting peace can be achieved only if weapons are used exclusively for national defense and for keeping domestic order rather than for waging preemptive war. World peace requires world community. If the U.S. were to abandon its quest for empire and fully embrace the Cosmopolitan Idea, it would not need a larger military. The central problem with Congressman Rangel’s proposal to reinstate the draft is that it is not bold enough. A Copernican RevolutionJust as Copernicus proposed that we replace a geocentric view of the universe with a heliocentric model, we should abandon the idea that nation states are the primary focus of social and political existence and adopt the Cosmopolitan Idea as the fundamental principle on which to base the foreign policy of all nations. To lead the way toward that goal, the United States should transfer much of its military force to the United Nations, an organization built upon the Cosmopolitan Idea. Rather than building a world empire and thinking primarily about its national economy, the U.S. and all other nations should work to embrace the Cosmopolitan Idea — the goal of seeking a common good for all human beings in harmony with nature. This is not a partisan issue. Some leaders who are members of the Democratic party have supported and still do support militarism. Some Republicans, such as President Eisenhower, have strongly opposed militarism. Some independents are hawks and others are doves. As I tried to make clear earlier in this series of podcast, this is really a philosophical issue, not a political one in the narrow sense of that term. The basic philosophical choice, as I framed it earlier, is between an approach like that of Thomas Hobbes—who called for a powerful Leviathan that would bring security and peace even at the cost of freedom and justice—and the Kantian demand for autonomy and justice. The Kantian approach is basically consistent with the Enlightenment vision of the people who founded the United States and wrote the Constitution. Kant wrote his essay What is Enlightenment? in 1784—between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Kant’s moral and political philosophy articulates the fundamental principles on which the U.S. Constitution is based. Hobbes’ philosophy is based on heteronomy, and for that reason it easily leads to tyranny. Militarism and imperialism are at home in tyrannical societies, but they have no place in a democratic republic. The choice between these two philosophies is tantamount to the choice between empire (Hobbes) and the Cosmopolitan Idea (Kant). As Kwame Anthony Appiah explains in his book Cosmopolitanism (W. W. Norton, 2006), the Cosmopolitan Idea is pluralistic. It strongly favors local and individual autonomy in both ethics and politics. But on a few important matters—such as arms control and preserving the natural environment—world community is prior to local communities. Europeans, Asians, Americans, Africans, and residents of all other parts of the world can and should be bound by a few basic principles. The UN has made a good beginning in writing declarations that articulate principles that apply to the entire world community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) are examples of statements of principles that apply to all people and seek a just moral, political, and economic order suitable for the entire globe, including the natural environment.World community should be distinguished from world government. The governmental structure of the U.S. and the organization of the European Community make clear that it is possible for people to retain control over most of their decisions on the local and personal level of activity. The laws of cities, states, and countries—as well as international treaties—may claim priority on some matters, but neither politics nor morality requires people to give up their sovereignty. Economic activity, education, interpersonal relationships, sexual preferences, cultural organizations, religious practices, medical care, and a large number of other vital activities can and should be left to individual choice as much as possible. Such activities should be regulated only when the welfare of other people is clearly at stake. The burden of proof lies with those who would limit individual choice rather than those who favor autonomy. These various spheres of community can and should work in harmony. There is no contradiction in having several levels of sovereignty any more than thinking that the various planets can follow separate paths as they revolve around the sun. I can simultaneously be a good citizen of my town, my state, my country, and of the world. The U.S. was founded on that model, which is no less attractive today than it was in the 18th century. The European Union is structured in much the same way. Unalienable ResponsibilitiesIn order for people to be truly autonomous, all citizens should be required to make certain minimum contributions to local, national, and international communities. Unalienable responsibilities should accompany unalienable rights. ·It is obvious that people should be required to pay taxes to provide goods and services required for communities to flourish, but the responsibility concerning who should pay how much is variable, depending on a variety of factors. People who have no income cannot be expected to pay income tax. People who have no property need not pay property tax. ·But there are some responsibilities that apply to all citizens. People should be required to serve the community to provide functions that are essential to a just society. Some of those functions cannot be purchased or delegated to professionals. For example, citizens should be required to serve on juries to preserve an open and fair judicial system. Jury duty cannot be purchased or delegated, because a fair judicial system demands trial by an impartial jury, as is stipulated in the U.S. Bill of Rights, especially in Article VI. ·In order to be autonomous, people must attain a minimum level of formal and practical education. This is a necessary condition of ethical and political enlightenment, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant explained in essays such as What is Enlightenment? and The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. All 50 states require school attendance of young people between the ages of 7 and 16. Some states require attendance until age 17 or 18. Considerable choice of subjects exists for students in all of those systems, but they all have a set of core requirements that seek to establish minimum levels of literacy, numeracy, and civic understanding. Now I will return to the question of universal military conscription and consider whether it is another unalienable responsibility. I think there is both moral and political justification for the claim that U.S. citizens have an unalienable responsibility to perform national service. But it should not be confined to military service. The author and journalist Jim Lehrer gave a commencement speech at Harvard University in June of 2006. In that address he introduced the idea that national service would be a good way to respond to the inequality and unfairness that is caused by the current method of staffing the U.S. military. He also suggested that it might be a good way to promote the kind of unity that is necessary for a healthy community and is lacking in contemporary U.S. society. He said: Speaking now as a journalist whose job it is to pay attention to such things, I have never seen us more disconnected from each other than we are right now. We are splintering off into segments, interest groups, lobbies, target audiences, blogs, and boxes. Our racial, cultural, and religious differences, always our great strength, have become an instrument in our great disconnection. Rather than offering a proposal concerning such national service, Lehrer listed a series of “framing questions” to initiate discussion of the idea of national service. Should such service be mandatory? Should it apply to both men and to women? What are the age parameters for such service? Should it allow choices among a variety of alternatives, including military and nonmilitary options? Like Lehrer, I am not a politician, but I will venture some tentative answers to his framing questions and to some that he did not ask. My perspective is that of a college professor, who has been teaching mostly 18-22 year old men and women since 1962, and as a scholar with a Ph.D. and a list of publications in the field of philosophy. My purpose is not to generate legislation but to extend the discussion initiated by people like Charles Rangel and Jim Lehrer. A Bold Proposal: Mandatory National ServiceI propose adopting a mandatory period of national service for all U.S. citizens. Two years of such service would be required, normally beginning at age 18 or after completion of secondary school. Individuals would be allowed to choose the form of service from a set of broad categories all of which contribute to the security and welfare of the U.S. society. In addition to military service, citizens could choose areas such as medical service, public works, public safety, education, and others that are essential or beneficial for the common good. This period of service should be considered (1) as part of the education needed to be an autonomous member of a free society and (2) as a necessary aspect of providing the security and welfare for the U.S. society as a whole. Those who serve in the military to fulfill this requirement should do so only to defend and secure the homeland. Those who serve in other ways should do so in the same spirit, to promote the security and wellbeing of other members of the world community. All U.S. citizens have a moral and political responsibility to foster the world community above and beyond the interest of a single nation. I estimate that the current eligible 18-year-old population of the U.S. is approximately 4 million men and women. A two-year requirement would involve approximately 8 million men and women. Currently the total size of the U.S. armed forces is approximately 1.2 million men and women. No more than 75,000 of them are currently assigned to active military engagement. (National Public Radio—Morning Edition—1-10-07). Even if the scope of military activity were expanded far beyond the present level, more than 6 million men and women would be available for other forms of national service. What would those people do?National service should be defined broadly. Each citizen, after completing secondary school, would choose a mode of service and apply for admission. Physical and aptitude exams, along with current needs, would regulate assignments for national service. In addition to local agencies and institutions, much of this service could take place as part of the various agencies of the United Nations. An 18-year old who joins the Iowa National Guard with a minimum two-year commitment could be performing national service. In times of national emergency, such as when the hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, members of the national guard from Iowa and many other states could be sent to keep order and help rebuild. Another form of service is public safety, such as service to a local police or fire department. In that case people fulfilling their national service requirement would be assigned as apprentices to local communities where they would be trained and serve local needs but would also be available to assist in the case of natural disasters in other regions. One of the most urgent concerns for the U.S. and the rest of the world is the pollution of the environment and global warming. It is now clear that many forms of disease, including cancer and diabetes, come from pollution of our water and our air. The Environmental Protection Agency would benefit greatly from having vigorous and agile young people in the field gathering samples to be tested by trained professionals. Before he went to college in the 1980s, my son participated in a program that gathered samples to be tested for the effects of acid rain in the Adirondack Mountains. Inspired by that experience, he majored in environmental studies and continued to do environmental research after he graduated. This kind of activity would be an excellent form of national service that would contribute to the welfare of all people in all nations. People interested in a medical career could begin as apprentices in the national service program and serve at various locations throughout the world. The AIDS crisis that now exists throughout the globe is an obvious opportunity for such service. In the future a flu pandemic could create a similar need for massive human resources to avoid disaster. Far greater resources than are now available should be devoted to education. People interested in a career in education could choose service in programs sponsored by the U.S. but conducted locally. If it were connected to local colleges and universities, this form of service would help fill the gap left by the disrupted flow of 18 year-olds-into higher education. Educational service could take place in any of the traditional academic subjects such as history, literature, the sciences, and the arts as well as practical subjects such as the crafts, engineering, computer technology, and agriculture. Other forms of service might also be considered. Many countries provide support to young athletes who are preparing for the Olympics. Two years devoted to training for the Olympics might well qualify as legitimate national service. Currently the various branches of the military have military bands and choruses. Young musicians, who are often extremely proficient by the age of 18, might choose to participate in musical organizations devoted to fostering the Cosmopolitan Idea. An excellent model for such organizations is the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said. This selection and placement process this would have to be worked out through the appropriate political process, so I offer these initial suggestions simply to prime the pump. Implementation and ResourcesThis is not a utopian scheme. It grows out of trends that are already well established, and it anticipates the collapse of the current drive toward empire on the part of U.S. foreign policy. We have already seen strong evidence of that eventual collapse in the war now being fought in Iraq. People who favor sending more troops to Iraq and spending billions of dollars on that war, such as President Bush Vice President Dick Cheney, challenge those who think we should withdraw from Iraq to propose an alternative. I am offering this proposal as an alternative. Of course it is not a short-term political or military solution. It is a philosophical perspective that favors the Cosmopolitan Idea over world empire as a fundamental principle. The Bush Administration has foolishly trapped the United States in a quagmire that would not have existed if they had waited for full support from the United Nations. The contrast with the Persian Gulf War that began and ended in 1991 is profound. I believe that my “bold proposal” does provide a constructive alternative to abandoning Iraq to civil war and sectarian violence. But it is a long-term plan based on a Copernican Revolution. Short-term violence and tragic loss of life is probably inevitable because of the hubris of the Bush Administration. We should start now to initiate the massive transformation needed to avoid long-term disaster not only for Iraq but also for the entire world. To do that we must abandon the quest for empire and pursue the Cosmopolitan Idea. Why do I think U.S. imperialism should not and will not last? I agree with Chalmers Johnson, who lists what he calls “four sorrows of empire.” He warns that these sorrows will increase “if present trends continue” (The Sorrows of Empire, p. 285). I already presented and elaborated on those four sorrows in an earlier podcast. For the present podcast I will simply list them as a reminder.1.The current quest for empire entails a state of perpetual war. This war, as it has developed in the 21st century, will lead to increased terrorism against Americans wherever they are in the world. It will also feature increased reliance on weapons of mass destruction on the part of smaller nations. 2.Most alarming, it seeks to justify pre-emptive war rather than national defense. At West Point, on June 1, 2002, President Bush said: Americans must be “ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and defend our lives … In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act” (ibid. p. 286). 3.The third sorrow involves the replacement of truth by propaganda and disinformation (ibid. p. 298). 4.Finally, “there will be bankruptcy, as we pour our economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects”(ibid.). The Soviet empire is the clearest example of this kind of bankruptcy from the recent past. As an alternative to imperialism and militarism, I propose a massive reduction in the amount of money sent to the Pentagon — “The War Department.” Much of what is now called “defense spending” is actually devoted to empire building. The National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency—with their massive, hidden budgets—are part of this militaristic program. If the resources used to foster militarism were redirected to what I will call The Department of National Service (DNS), this program could result in a decrease rather than an increase in the federal budget. The DNS should be headed by a member of the President’s Cabinet and overseen by Congress. I propose closing all of the foreign military bases and many of the ones on U.S. territory now under control of the Pentagon. If the purpose of the U.S. military is defense rather than imperialism, those bases are not appropriate. They should be placed under the aegis of the United Nations to be used for the work of its various divisions. This move would not relinquish the sovereignty of the United States, but it would shift the overall foreign policy goals from the building of the American empire to promoting and fostering the Cosmopolitan Idea. The U.S. investment in those bases would not be lost. As a member of the United Nations, the U.S. would continue to contribute and benefit from its work on behalf of the world community. This would be a much better way to reduce the threat of terrorism worldwide than by expanding the U.S. military. This expense could be counted as part of the U.S. contribution to the U.N. In this proposal, people engaged in national service would receive food, shelter, clothing, and health care (as members of the military now do). They should also receive payment for their services appropriate for their modest level of experience and training. They would receive education and training and would be eligible for federal loans and grants to continue their education once their period of national service ends. If eight million people were employed in this way, considerable savings would be passed along to the various local, national, and international organizations and agencies currently providing these goods and services. Instead of mercenaries employed to expand and maintain the American Empire, the American public would be engaged in community service. Such service would foster a positive national identity, because the sole purpose of The Department of National Service would be to promote the common good. The mercenary structure that has evolved in the Pentagon as part of the so-called “volunteer military” has resulted in massive war profiteering on the part of various U.S. corporations. The war in Iraq provides ample evidence to support that claim. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is currently sponsoring legislation to counter that practice. Here is an excerpt from an announcement released by his office:WASHINGTON (Thursday, January 4, 2007) – Signaling a renewed emphasis on combating corruption at home and abroad, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy … introduced a package of bills … targeting corrupt officials and private companies seeking to defraud American taxpayers and troops. ConclusionIn the major policy address President Bush delivered on January 10, 2007, he called for a substantial increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq and requested an addition one hundred billion dollars to fund that war. By choosing that path, he chose to expand the quest for a U.S. empire and to increase militarism on the part of the U.S. Will the newly elected Congress move to end this act of hubris? The moment of truth is approaching.Chalmers Johnson already anticipated that choice in 2004. He said:There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies (The Sorrows of Empire, p. 312).If the Congress is unable to resist the tragic march toward empire, the cause of peace with justice will continue to suffer, and the world we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren will fall far short of the one presented in Micah. We will run the risk of having neither swords nor plowshares. Instead we will have what Immanuel Kant called the peace of the graveyard. In the meantime, those of us who choose to seek the Cosmopolitan Idea must insist on nothing less than universal rights. Kant ends his essay on lasting peace this way:This is how far things have progressed among small and large communities throughout the world: the abuse of rights in one place is felt by all. For these reasons, the idea of universal rights is not a farfetched and exaggerated concept but a necessary addition to the unwritten code of public rights of nations and states, as well as of humanity itself. It is a necessary condition for lasting peace toward which we continue to strive (Immanuel Kant, Toward Lasting Peace, translated by Lieselotte and Albert Anderson, Agora Publications, Inc. p. 360).